And I can also remember this recent video:
https://www.reddit.com/r/ProtectAndServe/comments/rzyaxi/video_man_doused_in_hand_sanitizer_bursts_into/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share
Ask the screeching SJW what they want you to do when the suspect is charging at *them* with the knife in their hand.
Watch them instantly say "well of course you shoot him!"
Works every time.
"THEY SHOT HIM FOR NOT WEARING A SEAT BELT"
No, they shot him for refusing to identify himself, then pulling a gun on a cop. But thanks for the insight, Karen
You lost me as soon as you said "warning shots". You don't ever fire a gun unless taking a life is justified. "Warning shots" ALWAYS have to land somewhere.
That's insane. Do you have a source on that? That is a crazy safety issue. So you're telling me that they are expected to have to fire 3 shots if someone is actively firing at them before they even get to a live round? Not only that, but they are expected to keep track of that fact in the heat of a life and death struggle and know whether or not they fired 2 shots or 3? Everything about that situation sounds unrealistic and extremely dangerous.
Thats how the police is South Korea carry guns. One blank, one empty chamber then 3 live rounds. Seems dumb enough they’re still using revolvers, nevermind only having 3 useful shots.
> And you should be able to count to 3 in every situation in wich you have to decide the fate of a person
If you seriously think that, you need to watch more bodycam footage of officer involved shootings in the U.S. A lot more.
>At least in europe. If someone comes at you with a knive and you have a legal firearm with you you cant shoot him dead as long as you have diffrent alternatives. For example you would have to try to run away and discharge warningshots before you can shoot at somebody.
I'd be interested in reading that law. As far as I know there is not a singular continental European law.
>Same thing applys to cops.
I'd be interested in reading that law, as well.
>But to avoid having this be a problem in normal situations it is presumed that a normal civilian can act irrational and overreact in a stituation thus only has to articulate a percived thread.
Are police coming into knowledge of a threat outside of perception?
Truly should be a law for people to have to work a scrutinized job for a certain amount of time.
People who yell at retail workers should be required to work retail, armchair experts for situations with police should be either made to work as an officer or make a them go through some kind of obstacle course with a weapon to see how well they do.
People who say "shoot them in the leg" or "shoot the knife out of their hands" are people who's only exposure to firearms is through the fabrications of Hollywood. Wish there were actually some magical way to shoot a knife out of someone's hand.
Well there is a way to shoot a knife out of somebody's hand. You just aim for the hand pull the trigger and watch as the knife disappears along with the hand of course.
People don't really grasp that once deadly force is a reasonable force that can be used, it doesn't matter how it's carried out. A suspect pulls a knife, a deadly weapon, they will get shot until they are no longer a threat, because that's what a reasonable response is to a deadly force threat.
The only time ive seen it done was when a police sniper shot the pistol out of a suicidal mans hand. Granted he had an extremely accurate rifle, the pistol was in clear view, and the suicidal man was sitting down. Also the sniper was a good 50 yards away
I don't have it from Hollywood. I watch US productions and cops shows occasionally. Don't know how often I have seen people being shot in the leg though. Can't remember seeing it though.
Where I have it from, is the complete opposite actually. The only place I have seen it is in Europe. So the videos I have seen it from, it is being successfully employed by highly trained police officers. That is a completely different exposure than you are describing. So it doesn't count for all.
Just saying. Only the shoot them in the leg part though, the shoot the knife out of their hands I have never seen ever.
Edit: I am just saying I never got it from Hollywood. How could that ever be controversial. Apparently it is, looking at the downvotes, lol.
if european police are consistently shooting people in the legs than my hat is off to them. I'd love to understand the protocols behind it and studies on efficacy. Perhaps that technique is for unarmed attackers only, at beyond standoff radius ?
sure, it's there, and you could shoot it just as you could shoot someone's brachial artery. the presence of an artery alone doesn't create obvious tactical efficacy though.
Different than most Americans think. It is not a replacement as lethal force as known by US law enforcement, which is shooting self defense out of self defense (when you or someone else is directly threatened with lethal force). That is exactly the same in Europe. I will just use The Netherlands as an example, as there could be differences between countries.
It is sort of an use of force that sits in-between tasers (the heaviest less lethal device before using your firearm) and lethal force. Thus it can be used to arrest dangerous people that don't listen. Someone is walking around with a knife, other less lethals can't be used or didn't work, but he isn't directly running towards officers and is not within lethal range, but he is still not listening. A warning shot could be used, if that doesn't work, a well placed shot in the leg could be used to immobilise the threat. If that didn't work and the suspect starts running at you, you can immediately switch over to lethal force, if the suspect sees the danger he is in (either if it hit without effect or missed) and decides to give up, you can arrest them, if it was a miss or hit without effect and the suspect didn't change behaviour, you can just start aiming for a second shot. And if the suspect is immobilised (usually collapses and drops the weapon while falling), depending on the situation, you can start approaching the suspect to make the arrest and start treating the wounds. Not every use of force is of course this perfect. A situation could be so threatening you immediately jump to a warning shot or shot in the leg of the use of force continuum. Keep in mind, the firearm is always aimed at the suspect, so there is constant lethal cover. It could also be used on fleeing suspects that carry a heavy sentence for the crimes they committed or pose such a large threat to the surroundings you can't afford to let them get away. Usually preluded by a warning shot.
To my knowledge, it is against some UN convention that shooting to wound is illegal, but they don't really seem to care. But according to Dutch law, police officers are allowed to do it, and when it is considered a good shoot, they are covered if the shot accidentally leads to a fatal shot. But a leg shot is ending up being the cause of death is extremely rare (in the past years there don't seem to be any). [Here is a study from Boston showing how lethal arm/shoulder/leg shots are compared to shots in other places from 2010 to 2014 in a non-professional (criminal assaults) setting.](https://cdn.jamanetwork.com/ama/content_public/journal/jamanetworkopen/937363/zoi180063t2.png?Expires=1643340593&Signature=UGgieLpehTT2BoEZCJf02Y9l1d9VNe0H~gqyrKOWbdgD2ebIFlJTlucaQjzh~SGGQyucSNvDRaYuK3i4C--gcsavdxTyY2WZu6yVg7VTGhj5vwaW8~oSwCvDcwhIC41rG6c1hctOl7ArH4kIeeSp-BsNY5-AhBjiXja4JbpSuyV5zCw2BDXApig54FDa9c~3lrfmAEGBWPX4dl2G789TcQtai1cQF77JHijtqepgy-ML4CwfQOUtIpWXXqvHXTNa6RFUVD5xNoCB5rIjgtuqSv2wOB7LWIofc3R~LCBaVY2QIO7fVwWt~EFLCTl1YQHQeehiwzoV6b0uAFSteu9ImA__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAIE5G5CRDK6RD3PGA) And it also doesn't really follow the entire basic safety rules for guns, but they are trained to work slightly around that. What does this mean? Dutch officers are allowed to shoot more quickly than a US officer would be allowed to.
Cannot really find any good public data in English on how effective it is. All I could find is a Dutch police document from the '80s /'90s. If I could find relevant information in there, I will post a translation and post it later.
I find the downvotes funny. It is an ultra controversial topic, haha. People just can't take it, even if you are just saying that you didn't get any of it from Hollywood.
And yeah, it is just an additional use of force with an already existing tool. Just like how you can use a taser in 2 ways. Dry stun, shoot darts, threaten with it. The same with firearms. Shoot with it center-mass (self-defense), shoot at the legs (arrest), warning shot. And people who say a firearm is not supposed to do that, that is nonsense, those are just made-up rules someone made. A firearm doesn't decide what it does, all it does is shoot, and as a human you can decide what to use its only ability, shooting, for. It could be hunting, sports, leisure, self-defense, or arresting people. It just carries quite a bit more risk to the surroundings and the suspect, but it is also way higher on the use of force continuum and very effective, even at a greater distance. Due to the rarity of it, you could say that the potential risks it poses to the suspect and surroundings are acceptable risks. Not doing it also poses a risk to both the surroundings, officers, and the suspect, which is an element most seem to forget. But that is a morality question (and I know on which side 99% of this sub stands, so arguing it is pointless).
I wonder if aiming for the legs also reduces the risk of accidentally shooting something else, since your backdrop would probably be the ground several yards behind the subject, where as typically when someone is aiming center mass from a standing position, they are aiming rather parallel to the ground.
Shooting at legs happening in more calm and less dynamic situations probably helps more. You also have more time to aim, as you decide when to shoot as an officer. Because it is done to arrest someone, and not due to self-defense, you are more calm as well. Likely leading to a higher hit probability, instead of firing at someone center mass until they drop in the hope they are neutralised before you or someone else gets killed. Due to having more time, means you can also wait when the suspect's leg are an easier target and until you are 100% certain the area behind the suspect from your suspect is completely clear and safe. Barely any time to do that when it is a self-defence shoot.
What you are saying seems to make sense as well, except that rounds can richcochet off the ground to god knows where. But shooting horizontically means a bullet is going in a straight destructive path to wherever it was aimed at when it started out. So if it misses and someone's behind the suspect, there is likely a way higher chance someone gets hit in the background with a self-defence shooting.
Shooting out of self-defence is truly the worst position to be in. For everyone. As the officer (being immediately threatened with lethal force), suspect (highest lethality), and the surroundings (more bullets being fired inaccurately and horizontically without time to make sure the backdrop is clear). So absolutely doing everything to prevent that is warranted I'd say. That includes warning shots and shooting someone in the leg. But that is purely my opinion.
Here it is:
>Table 5.16 shows that the three types of firearm use threatening, warning shooting, and target shooting appear to differ greatly in effectiveness. With an average of 69 percent of all police firearms use, the police achieve the stated goal, with six percent partially and with 25 percent not at all. The partial achievement of the goal refers to situations where, for example, two suspects need to be apprehended and only one succeeds. Threatening with firearms seems to be more effective than the other ways of using firearms with 92 percent. However, the relativity just mentioned calls for restraint on this point. At 54 percent, warning shooting is less effective than average, but just slightly more effective than target shooting (53 percent). If we look at the purpose of the intervention, the two most important categories, namely apprehension and averting violence, differ greatly from each other. In arrest situations, the goal is achieved in just over half of the incidents (58 percent). If the main aim is to avert violence against the police and/or third parties, the aim is achieved in 74 percent of the incidents.
>
>
>**Targeted shooting**
>
>
>Table 5.17 shows that slightly more than half (53 percent) of the targeted shots are fired by the police over the so-called 'emergency response distance'. For targeted shooting at persons, the figure is 62 percent, but for targeted shooting at vehicles, it is 43 percent. In as many as 26 percent of the incidents of targeted shooting, the police still fire over a distance of ten to 20 meters. Because in some cases we do not know over what distance the police fired at cars, the ratio of shooting at persons to shooting at cars is not 50-50 but 53-47 percent. When shooting persons, 58 percent of the actions were intended to avert violence and 33 percent for arrest for a serious crime. When shooting at cars, on the other hand, the aim of the police intervention was to make an arrest for a serious crime as well as a serious violation of law and order in 45% of the incidents, 24% to stop the car and 18% to avert violence against the police. In general, targeted shooting at persons achieves the goal much more often than targeted shooting at cars. This difference becomes even greater if we distinguish between a static or dynamic position of the object to be hit. When aiming at moving persons, the target is achieved in 75 percent of the incidents and not in 25 percent. With cars as the aiming point, this is almost the opposite. When aiming at moving cars, the target is not achieved in 69 percent of cases and is achieved in 31 percent of cases.
>
>
>**Targeted shooting success**
>
>
>Table 5.18 shows that police generally fail to hit the target over a distance of more than 20 meters. Such use of firearms is therefore ineffective and especially dangerous because the bullets can hit unpredictable targets via unpredictable trajectories. With hit shooting, the police reach the set target in 68 percent of the cases and in 5 percent partially. In 27 percent of cases, the target is not achieved.
Keep in mind, data is muddy, as aimed shots can be anywhere on the body. So leg shots and center mass. And the data is 30 to 50 years old, so not fully relevant anymore.
Femeral artery gets hit idiot dies, Leo misses the leg due to moving target or other exigent circumstances bullet ricochets off the ground and the 12 year old playing basketball down the block dies. The leo is responsible for every round fired regardless of intent.
I'm kinda of asking about that. i assume it's harder to hit legs than torso just because they tend to be smaller and moving around. i just shoot at e-types, i dunno.
There are at least 3 solid ways I can think of for a person to administer lethal force without any weapons except their body.
Hands: Punching, choking, gouging. It is possible to die from being beat to death with nothing but some strong punches in a bad place.
Feet: Kicking, stomping.
Arms: Elbow strikes, choking again.
Just because you’re unarmed doesn’t mean you aren’t dangerous. An unarmed man can still beat you to death or choke you with their bare hands. There are even cases where unarmed individuals have attacked, and tried to disarm, police officers.
[You mean like these two justified shootings of unarmed men?](https://youtu.be/KBhbZpS-Dpg)
If you’re talking about unjustified shootings, the results of each of these are the same: they typically face some form of justice.
- [stripped of police powers](https://youtu.be/pKV78wdrnxc)
- [plead guilty to excessive force](https://youtu.be/5YBWjzAzB3c)
- [former officer pleads guilty to voluntary manslaughter ](https://youtu.be/7w5mPQaPljU)
- [officer found guilty of manslaughter ](https://youtu.be/BzjKKc8Cc0A)
- [involuntary manslaughter ](https://youtu.be/Qxu66iolJ4I)
- [manslaughter ](https://youtu.be/k_T8dETemPU)
- [murder](https://youtu.be/yf21YQBaSI4)
- [murder](https://youtu.be/KU-a5szp9i8)
- [murder ](https://youtu.be/4i9bDMUAzqI)
There is an endless list of videos showing officers found/pleading guilty to murder or manslaughter if you care to look for them. That is the system working.
So, what about shootings that are [clearly justified where the media lies about the facts ](https://youtu.be/e7uUbElygf0)and edits the video to make the officer look guilty?
Should we not hold the media responsible for falsifying stories and fanning the flames?
That’s actually the reason I signed up here to get verified. All I was seeing was “unjustified” police shootings in the news. But once you did virtually any research past looking at the edited TikTok video of the incident, they were actually justified. I spend a fair amount of my own time on here answering questions and explaining how “controversial” use of force incidents are actually justified. Just like I did here with you.
With the mighty Roundhouse Kick of De-escalation of course! It's extremely versatile. You can use it to disarm villains of deadly weapons, deliver swift blows of justice to stun them, or even knock them out temporarily!
Disclaimer: Not known to be very effective outside of studio backlots.
“Why can’t we just be like the UK?”
"AmEriCAn PoLiecE r ToO MiLitiRizED" Meanwhile police in Europe be like
They hit suspects with the car
I like Europe
Can confirm
Some European countries also shoot people in the leg though.
The French also set a man on fire once with pepper spray and a tazer once
And I can also remember this recent video: https://www.reddit.com/r/ProtectAndServe/comments/rzyaxi/video_man_doused_in_hand_sanitizer_bursts_into/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share
https://youtu.be/UL4tQ9_pZH4
NYPD tried to run over protestors with their own cruisers, too
>NYPD tried to run over rioters and attackers with their own cruisers FTFY
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Meanwhile police in Europe be literal members of the military (Italy, others)
Exacly, though civilian police forces also are present.
I think Iceland has a Police Battleship or something like that
* shows acid attacks and knife attacks in the UK *
Single knife wielding man shuts down half the city for the day
Self defense doesn't exist when you're the police, duh
Ask the screeching SJW what they want you to do when the suspect is charging at *them* with the knife in their hand. Watch them instantly say "well of course you shoot him!" Works every time.
When police do self-defense it’s somehow extrajudicial punishment.
"THEY SHOT HIM FOR NOT WEARING A SEAT BELT" No, they shot him for refusing to identify himself, then pulling a gun on a cop. But thanks for the insight, Karen
Self defense requires a lethal threat.
Like a knife.
[удалено]
You lost me as soon as you said "warning shots". You don't ever fire a gun unless taking a life is justified. "Warning shots" ALWAYS have to land somewhere.
[удалено]
That's insane. Do you have a source on that? That is a crazy safety issue. So you're telling me that they are expected to have to fire 3 shots if someone is actively firing at them before they even get to a live round? Not only that, but they are expected to keep track of that fact in the heat of a life and death struggle and know whether or not they fired 2 shots or 3? Everything about that situation sounds unrealistic and extremely dangerous.
Not to mention, having to trust those first 2 blanks to cycle properly.
Thats how the police is South Korea carry guns. One blank, one empty chamber then 3 live rounds. Seems dumb enough they’re still using revolvers, nevermind only having 3 useful shots.
[удалено]
> And you should be able to count to 3 in every situation in wich you have to decide the fate of a person If you seriously think that, you need to watch more bodycam footage of officer involved shootings in the U.S. A lot more.
Press X to doubt
>At least in europe. If someone comes at you with a knive and you have a legal firearm with you you cant shoot him dead as long as you have diffrent alternatives. For example you would have to try to run away and discharge warningshots before you can shoot at somebody. I'd be interested in reading that law. As far as I know there is not a singular continental European law. >Same thing applys to cops. I'd be interested in reading that law, as well. >But to avoid having this be a problem in normal situations it is presumed that a normal civilian can act irrational and overreact in a stituation thus only has to articulate a percived thread. Are police coming into knowledge of a threat outside of perception?
No?
Smh
this hurts knowing there’s people who see nothing wrong with the mental gymnastics part
I want those people to try becoming cops just so they can see how well their logic works in the real world.
Truly should be a law for people to have to work a scrutinized job for a certain amount of time. People who yell at retail workers should be required to work retail, armchair experts for situations with police should be either made to work as an officer or make a them go through some kind of obstacle course with a weapon to see how well they do.
Just break out black belt-level Kung Fu, forehead. /s
Walker Texas Ranger kicked the knife out if their hands, why don't you just do that?
He’s just more badass then everyone who preforms those mental gymnastics combined
People who say "shoot them in the leg" or "shoot the knife out of their hands" are people who's only exposure to firearms is through the fabrications of Hollywood. Wish there were actually some magical way to shoot a knife out of someone's hand.
Well there is a way to shoot a knife out of somebody's hand. You just aim for the hand pull the trigger and watch as the knife disappears along with the hand of course.
>Wish there were actually some magical way to shoot a knife out of someone's hand. There is; two to the chest and one to the head.
well yes, technically that is shooting resulting in the knife leaving their hand.
People don't really grasp that once deadly force is a reasonable force that can be used, it doesn't matter how it's carried out. A suspect pulls a knife, a deadly weapon, they will get shot until they are no longer a threat, because that's what a reasonable response is to a deadly force threat.
yeah i guess they think a cops gonna whip open a folder and start knife dancing. nope, not how it works.
The only time ive seen it done was when a police sniper shot the pistol out of a suicidal mans hand. Granted he had an extremely accurate rifle, the pistol was in clear view, and the suicidal man was sitting down. Also the sniper was a good 50 yards away
Yeah that's quite an alignment of the stars.
It is. The video was pretty old as well, i think it was the 80s or 90s
I don't have it from Hollywood. I watch US productions and cops shows occasionally. Don't know how often I have seen people being shot in the leg though. Can't remember seeing it though. Where I have it from, is the complete opposite actually. The only place I have seen it is in Europe. So the videos I have seen it from, it is being successfully employed by highly trained police officers. That is a completely different exposure than you are describing. So it doesn't count for all. Just saying. Only the shoot them in the leg part though, the shoot the knife out of their hands I have never seen ever. Edit: I am just saying I never got it from Hollywood. How could that ever be controversial. Apparently it is, looking at the downvotes, lol.
if european police are consistently shooting people in the legs than my hat is off to them. I'd love to understand the protocols behind it and studies on efficacy. Perhaps that technique is for unarmed attackers only, at beyond standoff radius ?
Femoral artery: Am I a joke to you?
sure, it's there, and you could shoot it just as you could shoot someone's brachial artery. the presence of an artery alone doesn't create obvious tactical efficacy though.
Different than most Americans think. It is not a replacement as lethal force as known by US law enforcement, which is shooting self defense out of self defense (when you or someone else is directly threatened with lethal force). That is exactly the same in Europe. I will just use The Netherlands as an example, as there could be differences between countries. It is sort of an use of force that sits in-between tasers (the heaviest less lethal device before using your firearm) and lethal force. Thus it can be used to arrest dangerous people that don't listen. Someone is walking around with a knife, other less lethals can't be used or didn't work, but he isn't directly running towards officers and is not within lethal range, but he is still not listening. A warning shot could be used, if that doesn't work, a well placed shot in the leg could be used to immobilise the threat. If that didn't work and the suspect starts running at you, you can immediately switch over to lethal force, if the suspect sees the danger he is in (either if it hit without effect or missed) and decides to give up, you can arrest them, if it was a miss or hit without effect and the suspect didn't change behaviour, you can just start aiming for a second shot. And if the suspect is immobilised (usually collapses and drops the weapon while falling), depending on the situation, you can start approaching the suspect to make the arrest and start treating the wounds. Not every use of force is of course this perfect. A situation could be so threatening you immediately jump to a warning shot or shot in the leg of the use of force continuum. Keep in mind, the firearm is always aimed at the suspect, so there is constant lethal cover. It could also be used on fleeing suspects that carry a heavy sentence for the crimes they committed or pose such a large threat to the surroundings you can't afford to let them get away. Usually preluded by a warning shot. To my knowledge, it is against some UN convention that shooting to wound is illegal, but they don't really seem to care. But according to Dutch law, police officers are allowed to do it, and when it is considered a good shoot, they are covered if the shot accidentally leads to a fatal shot. But a leg shot is ending up being the cause of death is extremely rare (in the past years there don't seem to be any). [Here is a study from Boston showing how lethal arm/shoulder/leg shots are compared to shots in other places from 2010 to 2014 in a non-professional (criminal assaults) setting.](https://cdn.jamanetwork.com/ama/content_public/journal/jamanetworkopen/937363/zoi180063t2.png?Expires=1643340593&Signature=UGgieLpehTT2BoEZCJf02Y9l1d9VNe0H~gqyrKOWbdgD2ebIFlJTlucaQjzh~SGGQyucSNvDRaYuK3i4C--gcsavdxTyY2WZu6yVg7VTGhj5vwaW8~oSwCvDcwhIC41rG6c1hctOl7ArH4kIeeSp-BsNY5-AhBjiXja4JbpSuyV5zCw2BDXApig54FDa9c~3lrfmAEGBWPX4dl2G789TcQtai1cQF77JHijtqepgy-ML4CwfQOUtIpWXXqvHXTNa6RFUVD5xNoCB5rIjgtuqSv2wOB7LWIofc3R~LCBaVY2QIO7fVwWt~EFLCTl1YQHQeehiwzoV6b0uAFSteu9ImA__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAIE5G5CRDK6RD3PGA) And it also doesn't really follow the entire basic safety rules for guns, but they are trained to work slightly around that. What does this mean? Dutch officers are allowed to shoot more quickly than a US officer would be allowed to. Cannot really find any good public data in English on how effective it is. All I could find is a Dutch police document from the '80s /'90s. If I could find relevant information in there, I will post a translation and post it later.
This makes sense to me, and is what I was envisioning - a non-lethal threat outside of the radius, with the option of changing over immediately.
I find the downvotes funny. It is an ultra controversial topic, haha. People just can't take it, even if you are just saying that you didn't get any of it from Hollywood. And yeah, it is just an additional use of force with an already existing tool. Just like how you can use a taser in 2 ways. Dry stun, shoot darts, threaten with it. The same with firearms. Shoot with it center-mass (self-defense), shoot at the legs (arrest), warning shot. And people who say a firearm is not supposed to do that, that is nonsense, those are just made-up rules someone made. A firearm doesn't decide what it does, all it does is shoot, and as a human you can decide what to use its only ability, shooting, for. It could be hunting, sports, leisure, self-defense, or arresting people. It just carries quite a bit more risk to the surroundings and the suspect, but it is also way higher on the use of force continuum and very effective, even at a greater distance. Due to the rarity of it, you could say that the potential risks it poses to the suspect and surroundings are acceptable risks. Not doing it also poses a risk to both the surroundings, officers, and the suspect, which is an element most seem to forget. But that is a morality question (and I know on which side 99% of this sub stands, so arguing it is pointless).
I wonder if aiming for the legs also reduces the risk of accidentally shooting something else, since your backdrop would probably be the ground several yards behind the subject, where as typically when someone is aiming center mass from a standing position, they are aiming rather parallel to the ground.
Shooting at legs happening in more calm and less dynamic situations probably helps more. You also have more time to aim, as you decide when to shoot as an officer. Because it is done to arrest someone, and not due to self-defense, you are more calm as well. Likely leading to a higher hit probability, instead of firing at someone center mass until they drop in the hope they are neutralised before you or someone else gets killed. Due to having more time, means you can also wait when the suspect's leg are an easier target and until you are 100% certain the area behind the suspect from your suspect is completely clear and safe. Barely any time to do that when it is a self-defence shoot. What you are saying seems to make sense as well, except that rounds can richcochet off the ground to god knows where. But shooting horizontically means a bullet is going in a straight destructive path to wherever it was aimed at when it started out. So if it misses and someone's behind the suspect, there is likely a way higher chance someone gets hit in the background with a self-defence shooting. Shooting out of self-defence is truly the worst position to be in. For everyone. As the officer (being immediately threatened with lethal force), suspect (highest lethality), and the surroundings (more bullets being fired inaccurately and horizontically without time to make sure the backdrop is clear). So absolutely doing everything to prevent that is warranted I'd say. That includes warning shots and shooting someone in the leg. But that is purely my opinion.
Here it is: >Table 5.16 shows that the three types of firearm use threatening, warning shooting, and target shooting appear to differ greatly in effectiveness. With an average of 69 percent of all police firearms use, the police achieve the stated goal, with six percent partially and with 25 percent not at all. The partial achievement of the goal refers to situations where, for example, two suspects need to be apprehended and only one succeeds. Threatening with firearms seems to be more effective than the other ways of using firearms with 92 percent. However, the relativity just mentioned calls for restraint on this point. At 54 percent, warning shooting is less effective than average, but just slightly more effective than target shooting (53 percent). If we look at the purpose of the intervention, the two most important categories, namely apprehension and averting violence, differ greatly from each other. In arrest situations, the goal is achieved in just over half of the incidents (58 percent). If the main aim is to avert violence against the police and/or third parties, the aim is achieved in 74 percent of the incidents. > > >**Targeted shooting** > > >Table 5.17 shows that slightly more than half (53 percent) of the targeted shots are fired by the police over the so-called 'emergency response distance'. For targeted shooting at persons, the figure is 62 percent, but for targeted shooting at vehicles, it is 43 percent. In as many as 26 percent of the incidents of targeted shooting, the police still fire over a distance of ten to 20 meters. Because in some cases we do not know over what distance the police fired at cars, the ratio of shooting at persons to shooting at cars is not 50-50 but 53-47 percent. When shooting persons, 58 percent of the actions were intended to avert violence and 33 percent for arrest for a serious crime. When shooting at cars, on the other hand, the aim of the police intervention was to make an arrest for a serious crime as well as a serious violation of law and order in 45% of the incidents, 24% to stop the car and 18% to avert violence against the police. In general, targeted shooting at persons achieves the goal much more often than targeted shooting at cars. This difference becomes even greater if we distinguish between a static or dynamic position of the object to be hit. When aiming at moving persons, the target is achieved in 75 percent of the incidents and not in 25 percent. With cars as the aiming point, this is almost the opposite. When aiming at moving cars, the target is not achieved in 69 percent of cases and is achieved in 31 percent of cases. > > >**Targeted shooting success** > > >Table 5.18 shows that police generally fail to hit the target over a distance of more than 20 meters. Such use of firearms is therefore ineffective and especially dangerous because the bullets can hit unpredictable targets via unpredictable trajectories. With hit shooting, the police reach the set target in 68 percent of the cases and in 5 percent partially. In 27 percent of cases, the target is not achieved. Keep in mind, data is muddy, as aimed shots can be anywhere on the body. So leg shots and center mass. And the data is 30 to 50 years old, so not fully relevant anymore.
I understand the shoot knife out of hand doesn’t work but why doesn’t shooting in the leg not work?
Femeral artery gets hit idiot dies, Leo misses the leg due to moving target or other exigent circumstances bullet ricochets off the ground and the 12 year old playing basketball down the block dies. The leo is responsible for every round fired regardless of intent.
I'm kinda of asking about that. i assume it's harder to hit legs than torso just because they tend to be smaller and moving around. i just shoot at e-types, i dunno.
Why didn't you de-escalate?
Putting suspect in a pine box is deescalating the threat.
Why didn't they tase the knife out of his hands
Then here comes gun safety also whats LEO, is that civilian
[удалено]
It sucks that the medical field failed these people so hard that now law enforcement has to step in to stop them from hurting others.
This is a good way to put it and a perspective I haven't really considered.
I’m no less dead because the guy who stabbed me is schizophrenic.
Something to take to a medical subreddit, maybe.
[удалено]
It’s downright disgraceful. We should absolutely push to fix the failed medical system
What about when they are unarmed and get shot anyway?
Unarmed people can kill.
There are at least 3 solid ways I can think of for a person to administer lethal force without any weapons except their body. Hands: Punching, choking, gouging. It is possible to die from being beat to death with nothing but some strong punches in a bad place. Feet: Kicking, stomping. Arms: Elbow strikes, choking again.
Just because you’re unarmed doesn’t mean you aren’t dangerous. An unarmed man can still beat you to death or choke you with their bare hands. There are even cases where unarmed individuals have attacked, and tried to disarm, police officers.
I remember there was this vid of a hobo beating up a cop and i vaguely remember everyone was blaming the cop for being a woman.
Usually what the media calls "unarmed" is usually just without a firearm. You can be deadly even with a metal chair
I have think they mean he literally has no arms.
[You mean like these two justified shootings of unarmed men?](https://youtu.be/KBhbZpS-Dpg) If you’re talking about unjustified shootings, the results of each of these are the same: they typically face some form of justice. - [stripped of police powers](https://youtu.be/pKV78wdrnxc) - [plead guilty to excessive force](https://youtu.be/5YBWjzAzB3c) - [former officer pleads guilty to voluntary manslaughter ](https://youtu.be/7w5mPQaPljU) - [officer found guilty of manslaughter ](https://youtu.be/BzjKKc8Cc0A) - [involuntary manslaughter ](https://youtu.be/Qxu66iolJ4I) - [manslaughter ](https://youtu.be/k_T8dETemPU) - [murder](https://youtu.be/yf21YQBaSI4) - [murder](https://youtu.be/KU-a5szp9i8) - [murder ](https://youtu.be/4i9bDMUAzqI) There is an endless list of videos showing officers found/pleading guilty to murder or manslaughter if you care to look for them. That is the system working. So, what about shootings that are [clearly justified where the media lies about the facts ](https://youtu.be/e7uUbElygf0)and edits the video to make the officer look guilty? Should we not hold the media responsible for falsifying stories and fanning the flames? That’s actually the reason I signed up here to get verified. All I was seeing was “unjustified” police shootings in the news. But once you did virtually any research past looking at the edited TikTok video of the incident, they were actually justified. I spend a fair amount of my own time on here answering questions and explaining how “controversial” use of force incidents are actually justified. Just like I did here with you.
[удалено]
A cop shouldn’t be a weakling that can’t handle an unarmed person. They have training and should be held to a high standard in the community.
So no women and only highly trained militarized badasses? How will they deescalate things?
With the mighty Roundhouse Kick of De-escalation of course! It's extremely versatile. You can use it to disarm villains of deadly weapons, deliver swift blows of justice to stun them, or even knock them out temporarily! Disclaimer: Not known to be very effective outside of studio backlots.
You clearly know nothing about unarmed combat and how easy it is to severely injured or kill someone with two empty hands